Authored By: Khadeeja Sadiq
Aligarh Muslim University
BACKGROUND:
The case of Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions arose when Rangaswami, along with other employees of the Madras Raj Bhavan, applied for the registration of their trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras, refused to grant registration on the ground that the application did not fulfill certain statutory requirements. Aggrieved, Rangaswami filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act seeking to set aside the Registrar’s order, claiming that the refusal infringed upon the employees’ right to form and register a trade union.
Date of Judgement: 4th November, 1960
Bench: Ramachandra Iyer (J)
Parties involved in the case:
Petitioner:Rangaswami and Another
Respondent: Registrar of Trade Union and Another
Statutory provisions:
The following laws or legal precepts involved in this case are:
The Trade Unions Act, 19262
The Industrial Disputes Act, 19473
The Constitution of India4
FACTS OF THE CASE:
At the Raj Bhavan in Guindy, a number of persons are employed in various roles such as household staff, peons, chauffeurs, tailors, carpenters, maistries, gardeners, and sweepers.
Gardeners and maistries are also employed at the Raj Bhavan in Ootacamund. Their work involves domestic and maintenance services for the Governor’s household and attending to the needs of the Governor, his family, staff, and State guests. The employees fall into two categories.
- Staff of 102 persons engaged in services of a domestic nature whose employment is pensionable and governed by rules framed by the Governor of Madras.
- The second category consists of members of the work-charge establishment, including 33 maistries and gardeners at Guindy and 35 at Ootacamund, who are responsible for garden maintenance.
Their service is non-pensionable but they are entitled to gratuity at certain rates, with their conditions of service regulated by rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution5. Both categories of staff are appointed by and remain under the disciplinary control of the Comptroller.
To improve their working conditions and support collective bargaining, the employees at Madras Raj Bhavan formed a union called the Madras Raj Bhavan Workers’ Union. On February 9, 1959, seven employees applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions in Madras for registration under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. They argued that their work was not purely domestic and thus should qualify for registration.
However, the Registrar rejected the application, stating that the members were not engaged in a trade, industry, or business as required by the Act, and therefore could not be considered “workmen” eligible for registration
ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE:
Whether the association formed by the workers of Raj Bhawan can be registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
Whether the provisions and definitions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be read in conjunction with the Trade Unions Act, 1926, for determining eligibility for registration.
Whether the employees of Raj Bhawan qualify as ‘workmen’ and whether Raj Bhawan itself qualifies as an ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER:
The petitioners, represented by Mr. Ramsubramaniam, contended that the Registrar had wrongly refused to register the Madras Raj Bhavan Workers’ Union.
They argued that although the Trade Unions Act, 1926 does not define the term “industry,” it does use the term “workman,” and since both the Trade Unions Act and the Industrial Disputes Act aim at improving the conditions of labour, the definition of “industry” given in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act should be applied while interpreting the Trade Unions Act.
According to the wider definition given in Section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act, “industry” includes any business, trade, undertaking, service, employment, handicraft, or occupation of workmen.
The petitioners submitted that the Raj Bhavan employees systematically provided material services not only to the Governor’s household but also to guests and visitors, which brought them within the meaning of an “undertaking.”
They also pointed out that the Comptroller occasionally directed the sale of surplus garden produce and unserviceable articles, which, in their view, showed that the Raj Bhavan’s activities partook of the nature of trade or business.
Relying on the Calcutta High Court decision in Bengal Club Ltd. v. Shanti Ranjan6, where a club carrying on catering and liquor business was considered an industry, the petitioners argued that the Madras Raj Bhavan Workers’ Union should likewise be treated as a trade union entitled to registration under the Act.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT:
The respondents contended that the petitioners’ interpretation of the Trade Unions Act was fundamentally incorrect.
They submitted that a trade union under the Act must be associated with a trade, business, or industry, whereas the Raj Bhavan employees were not engaged in any such activity.
The Registrar emphasized that although the Act does not explicitly define “workmen,” the term should be understood narrowly to refer only to persons employed in a trade or industry, excluding those in domestic or personal services.
The respondents further argued that the definition of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act could not be applied to the Trade Unions Act, as the two statutes serve distinct objectives: the Industrial Disputes Act has a broader purpose of maintaining industrial harmony, while the Trade Unions Act aims solely to recognize labour combinations for collective bargaining within trade or business.
They asserted that the services provided at Raj Bhavan were essentially personal and domestic, catering to the Governor, his family, and state guests.
Any occasional sale of surplus garden produce or unserviceable items was merely routine administrative activity and could not be equated with a commercial enterprise. Based on these grounds, the Registrar maintained that the Raj Bhavan employees did not qualify as “workmen” under the Act and, consequently, their union was ineligible for registration.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:
The petition addresses whether the employees of the Raj Bhavan can form a trade union and seek registration under the Trade Unions Act of 1926.
Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 defines “industry” broadly, but the Court noted that there should be reasonable limits on its interpretation. Personal, domestic, or casual services cannot fit the definition of “industry.” The main requirement is that the services must directly benefit the employer during trade, business, or commercial activities.
In this case, the services provided by Raj Bhavan employees were purely personal, aimed at state guests and dignitaries, and only indirectly tied to the administration of the Raj Bhavan. Such services cannot be considered trade or business. Selling unserviceable items or surplus produce from the gardens occasionally was part of managing government property and cannot be seen as commercial activity.
The Court also stated that the Industrial Disputes Act and the Trade Unions Act should not be interpreted as a single code. The Industrial Disputes Act was created to maintain industrial peace and has a broader definition of “industry.”
In contrast, the Trade Unions Act focuses on regulating the relationship between workers and employers in trade or business contexts. An industry requires cooperation between capital and labour to meet human needs in an organized way. In the case of Raj Bhavan, there was no such cooperation aimed at a commercial or industrial goal.
Additionally, many Raj Bhavan employees were government workers whose employment conditions were determined by statutory rules. Even aside from this, the services provided were purely personal. Therefore, the proposed union of these workers could not be recognized as a trade union under the Act.
For these reasons, the Court upheld the Registrar of Trade Unions’ decision to reject the petitioners’ application. The petition was dismissed with costs.
RATIO DECIDENDI/ LEGAL REASONING:
The Industrial Disputes Act (IDA) and the Trade Unions Act (TUA) serve different purposes and cannot be read together as pari materia.
The definition of industry under Section 2(j) of the IDA is much wider and includes several services, but the TUA is narrower and applies only where there is a trade, business, or commercial undertaking involving employer–employee cooperation.
Purely personal or domestic services do not amount to “trade or business,” and employees engaged in such services cannot form a trade union for registration under the TUA.
OBITER DICTA:
Even if the wide definition of industry under Section 2(j) of the IDA were hypothetically applied to the TUA, the test of cooperation between employer and employee to fulfill material human needs would have to be satisfied. This test, laid down in Employees of Osmania University v. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad7, was not met in the present case.
The Court observed that it was doubtful whether government servants regulated by statutory rules could form a trade union at all. Though this issue had been considered in an earlier case (O.P. No. 312 of 1958, pending appeal), the Court held it unnecessary to decide the present case on that basis, as the petition failed independently on the ground that Raj Bhavan employees were not engaged in trade or business.
CONCLUSION:
The case of Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions (1960) ended with the Court supporting the Registrar’s decision to reject the registration of the Madras Raj Bhavan Workers’ Union. The Court stated that the employees of Raj Bhavan, who primarily performed personal and domestic services for the Governor, his family, and state guests, could not be considered “workmen” in an “industry” as defined by the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It highlighted that the Industrial Disputes Act and the Trade Unions Act have different goals and should not be seen as the same. While the Industrial Disputes Act offers a broader definition of “industry,” the Trade Unions Act is focused on organizations linked to trade, business, or commercial activities. Because Raj Bhavan’s services did not involve the kind of employer-employee cooperation aimed at a commercial or industrial goal, the employees’ group was not eligible for registration as a trade union. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with costs, confirming that purely domestic or personal work is outside the scope of trade union law.
Reference(S):
1 AIR 1962 Mad 231, (1961) ILLJ 599 Mad, (1961) 2 MLJ 554
2 The Trade Unions Act, 1926 (Act No. 16 of 1926)
3The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947)
4 The Constitution of India, 1950
5 Supra note 4, Art. 309
6 AIR 1956 Cal 548
7 AIR 1960 Andh. 388
